Karnataka High Court
Shivappa vs Shaikh Imam Sag @ Anaberu Imam Sab on 6 August, 2018
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
M.F.A. NO. 3370/2010 (MV)
C/W
M.F.A. NOS. 3369/2010,6042/2009
& M.F.A. CROB. 152/2011 (MV)
IN M.F.A. NO. 3370/2010:
BETWEEN:
SHIVAPPA
S/O HALAPPA
AGED 72 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O BUDIHALU VILLAGE,
HARIHAR TALUK
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHAIKH IMAM SAG @ ANABERU IMAM SAB
S/O RAJASAB
DRIVER OF BUS BEARING
REG NO.KA.17/454,
R/O MALEBENNUR VILLAGE,
HARIHAR TALUK.
2
2. N A THIPPERUDRASWAMY
S/O N M J B ARADHYA, MAJOR
OWNER OF MALLIKARJUNA BUS
BEARING NO.KA 17/454
MALLIKARJUNA COMPLEX,
PRAVASI MANDIRA ROAD, DAVANAGERE.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.,
M.M.K COMPLEX, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD,
P.J.EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B C SEETHARAMA RAO,ADVOCATE FOR R3
R2 IS SERVED UNREPRESENTED,
R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.02.2009 PASSED IN
MVC NO.338/2002 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN.) & MACT, HARIHAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO. 3369/2010:
BETWEEN:
D B BASAPPA S/O P BASAPPA,
AGED 58 YEARS,
R/O MALLANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HARIHAR TALUK.
DAVANGERE DISTRICT.
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1. HANUMAKKA W/O D.B.BASAPPA,
AGED 53 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O MALLANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT.
3
2. D.B. ANJANEYA S/O D.B. BASAPPA
AGED 25 YEARS,
R/O MALLAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HARIHAR TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT.
3. D.B. RENUKA D/O D.B. BASAPPA
AGED 23 YEARS,
MALLAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HARIHAR TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHAIKH IMAM SAB @ ANABERU IMAM SAB
S/O RAJASAB, DRIVER OF BUS BEARING
REG NO.KA 17/454,
R/O MALEBENNUR VILLAGE
HARIHAR TALUK.
DAVANGERE DISTRICT
2. N.A. THIPPERUDRASWAMY,
S/O N.M.J.B. ARADHYA, MAJOR,
OWNER OF MALLIKARJUNA BUS BEARING
REG NO KA 17/454,
MALLIKARJUNA COMPLEX,
PRAVASI MANDIRA ROAD,
DAVANAGERE.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD,
M.M.K. COMPLEX,
AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD,
P.J. EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE.
4
4. HANUMAKKA W/O D.B. BASAPPA,
AGED 53 YEARS,
HOUSE HOLD WORK.
(THE RESPONDENTS 4-6 IN THE
ABOVE APPEAL ARE TRANSPOSED
AS LRS OF THE APPELLANT AS PER
THE ORDER DATED 19/07/2018
AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 21/07/2018)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3
SRI. BASAVARAJ M. MUKKI FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH
R4 TO 6 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.02.2009 PASSED IN
MVC NO.333/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN) AND MACT, HARIHAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO. 6042/2009:
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PB. NO.237,
34/3, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD,
M.M.K COMPLEX, II FLOOR, P.J EXTENSION
DAVANAGERE
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL
MANAGER, SRI M. NAGAPPA
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI H P RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O BHARMAPPA
5
2. SRI H.P NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O BHARMAPPA
3. SRI H.P. RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O BHARMAPPA
ALL ARE R/O DODDANNAVARA BEEDI,
HONNALI TALUK
4. SMT. KENCHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
W/O SRI MAKANUR
R/O DURGI GUDI,
HONNALI TALUK
5. SMT. THEERTHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
W/O SRI RANGAPPA, D.NO. 932,
KURUBARAPETE, BUDIHAL,
DAVANAGERE TALUK
6. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
W/O SRI SHIVAPPA
R/O SANKLIPURA,
HARIHAR TALUK
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3
SRI. K R RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO 6
R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.02.2009 PASSED IN
MVC NO.355/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN) & MACT, HARIHAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION
OF RS.4,47,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
6
IN M.F.A. CROB 152/2011:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT THEERTHAMMA
W/O SRI RANGAPPA &
D/O BHARMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO.932,
KURUBARAPETE
BUDIHAL ROAD,
DAVANAGERE TALUK &
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 586013
2. SMT SHANTHAMMA
W/O SRI SHIVAPPA &
D/O BHARMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/O SAKLIPURA
HARIHAR TALUK &
HARIHAR DISTRICT - 586114
... CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. K R RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P B NO.237
34/3, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, M M K COMPLEX
II FLOOR, P J EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE
REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
2. SRI H P RAJAPPA
S/O BHARMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
3. SRI H P NINGAPPA
S/O BHARMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
7
4. SRI H P RANGAPPA
S/O BHARMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
5. SMT KENCHAMMA
W/O SRI MAKANUR &
D/O BHARMAPPA
(DIED 3 YEARS BACK)
ALL ARE RESIDENT AT:
DODDANAVAR BEEDI, HARIHAR -586013
DAVANAGERE TALUK.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA.NO.6042/2009 FILED U/O
41 RULE 22 OF CPC, PRAYING TO A) MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE
SR.DN) & M.A.C.T, HARIHAR IN M.V.C. NO. 355/2002
DATED 28.02.2009 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION
AND ALSO APPORTIONING THE COMPENSATION
AWARDED EQUALLY AMONG, ALL THE CLAIMANTS; B)
GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THESE APPEALS ALONG WITH CROSS OBJECTION
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
The claimants appeal in M.F.A. No.3369/2010 and M.F.A.No.3370/2010 challenge the judgment and award dated 28.02.2009 made by the M.A.C.T. at Harihar in M.V.C.No.333/2002 and M.V.C.No.338/2002, whereby a compensation in sums of Rs.1,91,000/- and Rs.1,43,000/- 8 respectively with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. is awarded. The challenge is on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2. The brief facts of the case stated are :
a) On 07.06.1999, a private stage carrier bus bearing Registration No.KA-17-454 was proceeding from Davangere to Malebennur with 120 passengers on Board. At around 4.30 p.m. or so, the ill fated bus met with an accident on Devarabelakere bridge and fell into the Dam, resulting into death of 96 passengers and others being injured. In all there were 99 claim petitions.
b) The appellants in M.F.A.No.3369/2010 had filed the claim petition in M.V.C.No.333/2002 and the appellants in M.F.A.No.3370/2010 had filed claim petition in M.V.C.No.338/2002, which were fiercely resisted by the insurer by filing the Written Statement.
c) The Tribunal after considering the pleadings of the parties along with other claim petitions had tried all these cases in common and passed a common judgment and multiple awards, two of which are in challenge now by the 9 claimants. There is no dispute as to the accident and the death of 96 persons including two persons in these cases.
3. The learned counsel for the claimants firstly contends that the age of the deceased Mr.Jagadish in M.V.C.No.333/2002 has been taken to be 28 years going by the postmortem report by the M.A.C.T. and therefore the Multiplier 18 ought to have been taken, whereas the Tribunal has taken 13; secondly, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- when the deceased was earning more than Rs.8,000/- p.m.; thirdly, in view of Apex Court judgment in the case of "National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi and others" reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% has to be added to the income of the deceased. So contending, the counsel seeks enhancement of the compensation.
4. In respect of M.V.C.No.338/2002, the learned counsel for the claimant firstly contends that the deceased B.Siddappa was aged 22 years, but the Tribunal has taken the Multiplier at 9 when 18 was admissible; the M.A.C.T. has taken Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income when the 10 deceased was earning Rs.8,000/-. Here too, the counsel submits that in view of Pranay Sethi's Case (supra), an addition of 40% has to be made to the income of the deceased.
5. Lastly, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that, in both these appeals the M.A.C.T. ought to have fastened the liability on the respondent-insurer in respect of the entire compensation and that the same having not been done, the impugned judgment and award are flawsome.
6. The learned counsel for the insurer, per contra, submits that the factors operated by the M.A.C.T. as to the age of the deceased, their monthly income and the Multipliers are on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidentiary material on record, and therefore due deference has to be shown to such findings when nothing contra has been pointed out from the L.C.R. or from the appeal papers. Therefore, he submits, the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
11
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned counsel for the insurer. I have also perused the records.
8. The accident happened on 07.06.1999; the income of both the deceased in these appeals is taken at Rs.1,500/- p.m. The evidence on record, shows that both the deceased were doing some business also. Even under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 as it stood at the time of accident i.e., in the year 1999, the ceiling limit on the wages was Rs.2,000/-p.m. and therefore the same is made the basis for altering the monthly wage value from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,000/-.
9. In M.F.A.No.3369/2010 arising from M.V.C.No.333/2002, the postmortem report specifically states that the deceased was aged 28 years. There is no reason for the M.A.C.T. to take 18 years merely on the assertion of the claimants as rightly contended by the counsel for the insurer and therefore the age of the deceased is altered from 18 to 28 years and consequently, the applicable Multiplier would be 17. Similarly, in M.F.A. 12 No.3370/2010 arising from M.V.C. No.338/2002, the age of the deceased being 22 years, the applicable Multiplier would be 18.
10. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra ) followed by HEMRAJ vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., reported in 2018 ACJ 5, to the income of Rs.2,000/-, an addition of 40% has to be made. So the amount of monthly income comes to Rs.2,800/- and 50% thereof has to be taken as the personal expenses of the deceased persons, since they were unmarried. There is no substance in the submission of the counsel for the insurer that regard being had to multiple deaths that happened because of the very same accident and these gave rise to about 99 claims, the ratio in Pranay Sethi's Case should not be made applicable. His further contention that in all other claims no such addition is made, being repugnant with the ratio of the aforesaid two decisions of the Apex Court, is unsustainable.
11. The learned counsel for the insurer next contends that in these appeals, the brothers of the deceased were 13 also arraigned as claimants, which is legally impermissible. He submits that under the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, the brothers do not represent the estate of the deceased, when the parents are alive and therefore they cannot be terms as legal representatives. He further adds that no evidentiary material is placed on record to show that these brothers were factually dependent upon the income of the deceased for holding their body and soul together.
12. The learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Apex Court in the case of GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. RAMANBHAI PRABATHBHAI reported in AIR 1987 SC 1690 (hereafter 'Gujarat Case'), in paragraph 13 has held as follows:
"We feel that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court is in consonance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience having regard to the conditions of the Indian society. Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realization of compensation and that is provided by Sections 110-A to 110-F of the Act. These provisions are in consonance with the principles of law of torts that every injury must have a remedy. It is for the Motor Vehicles Accidents 14 Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to it to be just as provided in Section 110-B of the Act and to specify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment as required by Section 110-B of the Act amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an application may be filed under Section 110-A of the Act have to be done in accordance with well-known principles of law. We should remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers' children and some times foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread- winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which as we have already held has been substantially modified by the provision s contained in the Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents. We express our approval of the decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai taljabhai and hold that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A of the Act if he is a legal representative of the deceased."
He also states that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. SAVITHA @ SAVITHA BADAGER vs. M/S.ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., (M.F.A.No.11345/2011 (MV) disposed of on 06.08.2013) has followed the ratio of the aforesaid decision that the brothers are dependents.
15
13. A careful scrutiny of the above judgment of the Apex Court in Gujarat Case shows that mere factum of dependency is not sufficient and what is required is also the claimant being a legal representative of the deceased, which becomes obvious when the Apex Court said:
"....we express our approval of the decision in Meghjibhai Khimji Via v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai (AIR 1977 Guj 195) (supra) and hold that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition under S.110-A of the Act if he is a legal representative of the deceased". (emphasis supplied).
Therefore to maintain a claim in law, the claimant should be a legal representative and also actually a dependent on the income of the deceased. Whether a brother is a legal representative of the deceased, normally depends upon the personal law applicable to the parties, since the parents being admittedly the claimants, and the M.A.C.T. having given deduction of 1/3rd from the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the question whether the brothers could have been the claimants, pales into insignificance.16
14. The learned counsel for the claimants relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. K.M.POONAM & OTHERS reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 254, submits that irrespective of seating capacity of the vehicle in question, the insurer is liable to discharge the award debt. Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the judgment read as under:
"Having arrived at the conclusion that the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation was limited to six persons traveling inside the vehicle only and that the liability to pay the others was that of the owner, we, in this case, are faced with the same problem as had surfaced in Anjana Shyam's case (supra). The number of persons to be compensated being in excess of the number of persons who could validly be carried in the vehicle, the question which arises is one of apportionment of the amounts to be paid. Since there can be no pick and choose method to identify the five passengers, excluding the driver, in respect of whom compensation would be payable by the Insurance Company, to meet the ends of justice we may apply the procedure adopted in Baljit Kaur's case (supra) and direct that the Insurance Company should deposit the total amount of compensation awarded to all the claimants and the amounts so deposited be disbursed to the claimants in respect to their claims, with liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amounts paid by it over and above the compensation amounts payable in respect of the persons covered by the Insurance Policy from 17 the owner of the vehicle, as was directed in Baljit Kaur's case.
In other words, the Appellant Insurance Company shall deposit with the Tribunal the total amount of the amounts awarded in favour of the awardees within two months from the date of this order and the same is to be utilized to satisfy the claims of those claimants not covered by the Insurance Policy along with the persons so covered. The Insurance company will be entitled to recover the amounts paid by it, in excess of its liability, from the owner of the vehicle, by putting the decree into execution. For the aforesaid purpose, the total amount of the six Awards which are the highest shall be construed as the liability of the insurance company. After deducting the said amount from the total amount of the all the Awards deposited in terms of this order, the Insurance company will be entitled to recover the balance amount from the owner of the vehicle as if it is an amount decreed by the Tribunal in favour of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company will not be required to file a separate suit in this regard in order to recover the amounts paid in excess of its liability from the owner of the vehicle."
15. The learned counsel for the insurer per contra submits that the decision of the Apex Court in Poonam's Case (supra) does not lay down the law at all, inasmuch the decision was given in the peculiar facts of that case; the judgment in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., vs. ANJANA SHYAM & OTHERS reported in AIR 2007 SC 18 2870 correctly lays down the law covering the fact matrix of these appeals; in any circumstance, Poonam's Case (supra) cannot be read as nullifying the ratio of Anjana Shyam's Case (supra), and therefore the insurer cannot be held liable in view of Anjana Shyam's Case (supra). He also submits that when two judgments of the Bench of equal strength are cited, the later one cannot be readily read as overruling the other. He hastens to add that
16. Anjana Shyam's Case (supra) was decided by the Apex court on 20.08.2007, whereas Poonam's Case (supra) is decided on 18.02.2011 by a Bench of equal strength. The later refers to the former, and thus going by law and practice of precedent, there arises no conflict between these two cases. Assuming that there is any, the voice of the later judgment has to be heeded to as held by the Five Judge Bench of this Court in the case of GOVINDANAIK G.KALAGHATGI vs. WEST PATENT PRESS CO. LTD., & ANOTHER reported in I.L.R. 1979 KARNATAKA 1401 (FB). On reference, the said Bench answered the question at page 1407 as under:
"Opinion of the Full Bench 19 In view of the majority opinion, the answer to the question referred to this Full Bench, is as follows: -
"If two decisions of the Supreme Court on a question of law cannot be reconciled and one of them is b a larger Bench while the other is by a smaller Bench, the decision of the larger Bench, whether it is earlier or later in point of time, should be followed by High Courts and others Courts. However, if both such Benches of the Supreme Court consist of equal number of Judges, the later of the two decisions should be followed by High Courts and other Courts".
17. The contention of the learned counsel for the insurer that this Court should not readily assume that the former judgment is overruled by the later judgment, is true. But, the later judgment interprets what the former judgment stated, then that statements should ordinarily be taken as the ratio of the former judgment; that being the position of law, the case in hand, going by the said interpretation has to succeed. The contention of Shri B.C.Seetharama Rao, the learned counsel for the insurer that the ratio of the former decision should be treated as having not been watered down by the later, inasmuch as the later view appears to have been taken under Article 20 142 of the Constitution of India does not impress me since the said Article has not been referred to in part of the judgment in Poonam's Case. The fact matrix of the said case does not warrant such an assumption, even otherwise also. This apart, the facts and circumstances of the case in these appeals justify invocation of the law declared by the Apex Court in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the said case. Therefore, the award liability is fastened on the insurer on the principle of 'Pay & Recover'.
18. In insurer's appeal in M.F.A.No.6042/2009, the respondent-claimants have filed Cross Objection No.152/2011, contending that the compensation awarded under the head 'loss of dependency' is too low. This contention is substantiated by the material on record, inasmuch as the age of the deceased was 45 years and therefore the applicable Multiplier is 14. To the income of the deceased ie., Rs.3,000/-, 30% has to be added towards 'loss of future prospects' under Pranay Sethi Case and Hemraj Case. Thus the compensation is re-worked out as under:
21
"Rs.3000X12 months X 14 Multiplier = Rs.5,04,000/-".
To this is added 30%, which comes to Rs.6,55,200/-. The amount of compensation payable is taken at 30% of the said value and the same comes to Rs.1,96,560/- + Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads, which in all works out to be Rs.2,66,560/-, with 6% interest per annum to be reckoned from the date of the petition.
19. The learned counsel for the claimants in Cross Objection No.152/2011 submits that the amount awarded as compensation is on the lower side. However, the said contention is not substantiated by pointing out the material from the record. No case is made out for enhancement of compensation. His next contention that the M.A.C.T. has not adopted any discernible principle of apportionment, has force. He submits that when the whole world is moving towards gender equality, the apportionment of the compensation between the brothers and sisters of the deceased, who are Class-II heirs under the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has to be in equal shares. There is force in this submission and 22 therefore the L.Rs. of the deceased shall apportion the compensation equally. To that extent, the Cross Objection is favoured.
20. In view of the altered factors, the compensation is re- worked out as under in terms of joint memo of calculation filed at the bar.
In M.F.A.No.3369/2010 Income of the deceased is taken at Rs.2,000/- p.m. To this 40% is added towards future prospects. The same comes to Rs.2,800/-, of this 50% is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and thus the factorable figure comes to Rs.1,400/-. Therefore: 1400X12X17 = Rs.2,85,600/-. This amount of Rs.2,85,600/- is towards loss of dependency. To this is added Rs.30,000/- towards conventional heads. The total compensation comes to Rs.3,15,600/-
In M.F.A.No.3370/2010 Income of the deceased is taken at Rs.2,000/- p.m. To this 40% is added towards future prospects. The same comes to Rs.2,800/-, of this 50% is deducted towards personal 23 expenses of the deceased and thus the factorable figure comes to Rs.1,400/-. Therefore: 1400X12X18 = Rs.3,02,400/- This amount of Rs. 3,02,400/- is towards loss of dependency. To this is added Rs.30,000/- towards conventional heads. The total compensation comes to Rs.3,32,400/-.
21. In the above facts and circumstances, the appeals of the claimants and the appeals of the insurer as also the Cross Objections of the claimants, are all partly allowed; the impugned judgments & awards accordingly stand modified enhancing the compensation in M.F.A.No.3369/2010 arising out of M.V.C. No.333/2002 from Rs.1,91,000/- to Rs.3,15,600/- (Rupees three lakh fifteen thousand and six hundred) only and in M.F.A. No.3370/2010 arising out of M.V.C. No.338/2002 from Rs.1,43,000/- to Rs. 3,32,400/- (Rupees three lakh thirty two thousand and four hundred) only. In M.F.A.No.6042/2009 and Cross Objection No.152/2009, the impugned judgment and awards arising from M.V.C.No.355/2002 are modified and it is held that all the 24 claimants are entitled in equal proportion to a compensation of Rs.2,66,560/-.
In all these cases, the compensation shall carry an interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the date of petitions.
The M.A.C.T. is directed to release the entire sums of compensation as altered in these cases to the claimants without any stipulation as to bank deposit or the like. It is needless to say that the remainder of the amount, if any, shall be released to the appellant-insurer. It is made clear that the liability is fastened on the insurer on the principle of 'Pay & Recover'.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE Snb/